Until recently, the Democratic battle for president was basically an undercard of sorts for the more entertaining—and often perplexing and occasionally terrifying—Republican race. But with a week to go until the Iowa caucuses, it has turned into a surprisingly tight, and deeply antagonistic, clash between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with cameos by Martin O'Malley.

Vanity Fair is covering tonight’s town hall in real time. Here is what our team of reporters and columnists are thinking.

(11:05 p.m.) T.A. Frank: Clinton says she's happy that people are looking through her emails. Yeah, and I'm happy the TSA is giving me an enhanced screening. Still, she had a good night. As did Sanders. So who was helped most? Hard to say, but I'm guessing Clinton.

(11:04 p.m.) Bruce Feirstein: I’m happy people are looking at my emails, nothing I did was wrong, the only reason I used a server was for my own convenience. No. No. No. And this isn’t going away. My final take on tonight’s event: Martin O’Malley didn’t help himself, Bernie Sanders showed why he’s got the momentum, and Hillary Clinton did very well, but I’m not sure if she changed any undecided voter’s minds.

(11:00 p.m.) Sarah Ellison: Hillary is STILL so not at all sorry for the email thing. Nope. Not one bit.

(10:57 p.m.) T.A. Frank: Credit where credit is due: Hillary Clinton's answer on international relations was excellent. Even those who question her judgment and character (or who flat out can't stand her) cannot deny the seasoning and confidence she would bring to steering the ship of state.

(10:56 p.m.) Sarah Ellison: Hillary makes a case, in prose, for how she's going to give the Republicans bear hugs once she is elected and put together coalitions to get stuff done.

(10:54 p.m.) Bruce Feirstein: This forum works especially well for Mrs. Clinton. She’s forthright, passionate, and her years of experience in front of audiences like this one plays to her strengths. The problem is that tomorrow morning, the questions about her emails will continue, and everyone else is going to pick over her taking credit for “success” of the Iranian nuclear agreement, and that line about “no ground troops” but Special Forces are okay. It all sounds good in the room, but I don’t know that she’s managed to sway any undecided voters.

(10:48 p.m.) Sarah Ellison: Hillary is asked about her record on foreign policy and lines up shoulder to shoulder with Obama. She says she spent much of her time as Secretary of State earning back the trust of allies who had been disillusioned under Bush.

(10:39 p.m.) William D. Cohan: All of Clinton's endless babble about tackling inequality... Well, the Clintons certainly took care of themselves in a big way after 2000.

(10:37 p.m.) T.A. Frank: Now that's what I call a ramping up! First question to Hillary: Obama likes you. What do you have to say to that? Second question: Obama really, really likes you. What do you have to say to that? Third question: Why are you in a tough race in Iowa? Fourth question: Why don't people like you?

(10:36 p.m.) Sarah Ellison: Hillary has a good answer for the young guy who leans toward Bernie, but she is awfully shout-y in her delivery. Maybe that's just the theme of this election. Shouting. (Also, someone should tell that kid not to chew gum when asking a question on national television.)

(10:35 p.m.) William D. Cohan: Great question from Cuomo about how Clinton is letting this slip away again. Poor answer from Hillary. She's having a good time talking to folks in Iowa, but not answering the question. And that laugh...But she is wrong that she has become the target of attacks because of the time she has spent in the arena. It's also because of her behavior there.

(10:29 p.m.) Jon Kelly: Hillary is great in flicking away Sanders. Her explanation for his existence ("this is a great country") basically reads as: yeah, it's fun to kick the tires on some nutty old guy for a couple months before I inevitably kick his butt.

(10:20 p.m.) Bruce Feirstein: O'Malley lodges a nice dodge on the “Since you’re campaign is hopeless, who should your people vote for?” question from Cuomo. A trick question that any pol in his position would have anticipated, and knew how to sidestep.

(10:16 p.m.) T.A. Frank: O'Malley is grinning and wide-eyed as he talks about global warming as a business opportunity. I think he means to look spirited, not maniacal. But I'll have to check with his campaign. On the question of how he differs from Sanders on policy, he seems thrown, getting quiet, like an actor trying to remember his lines, and then suddenly zooming back into them with a triumphant smile. On the other hand, he has spent enough time in Iowa to be able to answer a farming-related question with aplomb.

(10:14 p.m.) Jon Kelly: Enough with these softballs. Does O'Malley think that Adnan Syed did it?

(10:11 p.m.) Bruce Feirstein: Everything Martin O’Malley is saying is nice and mellifluous. But the problem is that he’s not making the case for himself. Why him, now, rather than Hillary or Bernie? He’s got to paint the sky tonight (underlining why he’s the one, rather than a self-proclaimed socialist, or a former Secretary of State) and he’s not doing it.

(10:02 p.m.) William D. Cohan: Climate change is a business opportunity, Martin, really? That's how you frame this problem?

(10:01 p.m.) Jon Kelly: Sorry O'Malley: Climate change is definitely not the best new industry to come to the U.S. in the past century. To wit: autos, off-shore drilling, fracking, high tech, junk food, and the N.F.L. all did pretty swell.

(9:56 p.m.) T.A. Frank: Would Martin O'Malley be more compelling and interesting if he were leading the polls? No.

(9:52 p.m.) T.A. Frank: I thought Bernie Sanders was going to say he understood the importance of mental health treatment because of calls from his constituents. A finding familiar to most elected officials.

(9:51 p.m.) Bruce Feirstein: For me, the one thing that continues to come across about Bernie Sanders is his sincerity. He seems so real, and genuine, and unscripted in his views. His answer about whether he’s as qualified as Hillary was particularly deft: The Iraq War vote, the fight against banking deregulation, his opposition to Keystone and trade agreements, and the refrain (Why did it take Hillary so long?) was both convincing and damning. If we were doing Olympic judging here, I’d give him a 9 on form, and substance.

(9:42 p.m.) Jon Kelly: Man, Chris Cuomo seems a little too comfortable with Sanders. It will be interesting to see if Clinton scares him and O'Malley bores him. Either way, his evident joy in hanging out with the Senator will make him a tough act to follow.

(9:38 p.m.) T.A. Frank: Sanders has a powerful stemwinder in response to the question of whether he can match Hillary Clinton for experience and judgment. It starts out looking like a home run. Then he maybe goes a little too far, lapsing back into railing. But it seems like he's having a good night.

(9:36 p.m.) Jon Kelly: The patience of this audience is another reminder that Iowa has nothing in common with the rest of America.

(9:34 p.m.) T.A. Frank: Now that Bernie is lowering his voice for a moment to talk about how his presidency would be good for women, he is much more winning. The audience seems to like it to... and then Bernie interrupts Cuomo to say, "Hold on, Chris. I'm trying to win her vote." It's funny. A good moment for Bernie.

(9:30 p.m.) William D. Cohan: You don't have to be a woman to fight for women's rights. There is no doubt Bernie will fight for women and show a good sense of humor in the process.

(9:24 p.m.) T.A. Frank: So let's deal with what's non-substantive, despite the admirably (genuinely admirably) substantive nature of this debate so far. Sanders lacks the Obama gift for being conversational in delivery. I'm reminded of a line by Jack Handey: "It felt like elves were hammering nails into my head, but with no rhyme or reason." Chris Cuomo, for his part, is asking good questions, but I keep looking at his jacket. It raises questions about window panes. In any case, the audience questions are great.

( 9:20 p.m.) William D. Cohan: Tax on speculation on Wall Street... Bernie keeps saying that and I still don't know what he means, and neither does he I bet. But he is right that Wall Street, which the American people bailed out, should give back to America's middle class.

(9:17 p.m.) Bruce Feirstein: So wait a minute: The three of them aren’t going to be on the stage at the same time??? The “Possibility of Fireworks” quotient just went down by 75 percent. What an odd format: Sort of like three different interviews, with pre-screened questions from the audience, and Chris Cuomo doing the follow ups. Bernie Sanders is lucky he’s going first. I wonder how many viewers are going to stick around for the whole thing.

(9:15 p.m.) Jon Kelly: The most obvious sign of a political neophyte is that they think they can raise taxes on Wall Street banks. Tax regulation was created for well paid tax lawyers to work around it.

(9:11 p.m.) William D. Cohan: Bernie is right: it is time to take on the powerful pharmaceutical companies. But Bernie, taxes are already too damn high, especially if you live in New York City.

(9:10 p.m.) T.A. Frank: The first voter asks an excellent, simple question of Sanders about what "socialism" means to him, and Sanders gives an answer that is pretty good but slightly platitudinous. Still, it maybe not enough to quell the fears of those who fear the S word.

(9:09 p.m.) William D. Cohan: That's a definition of democratic socialism I can live with!

(9:05 p.m.) Jon Kelly, V.F. Contributing Editor: The Bernie-Chris Cuomo bro hug is just the latest gift this campaign has created for gif creators.

William D. Cohan, V.F. Contributing Editor: Unfortunately, I suspect that Clinton will go out of her way to make Bernie look bad, discredited, and duplicitous for her own political gain. Of course, that will just make her look like the ambitious, unethical opportunist we already know her to be. Can she conduct herself with dignity and not go for the low blows?

T.A. Frank, VF.com Contributor: We're having this town hall (not a debate, officially!) because Clinton hopes to change the trajectory. Bernie Sanders leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and it'll take a proper disturbance to change that. Debates can be proper disturbances. Initially, as you may recall, Clinton led the polls, and the Democratic National Committee leaders were banking on keeping it that way by giving her opponents as little debate exposure as possible. Now, Hillary's the one who needs the debate… I mean, town hall. Everyone agrees Clinton is good at this sort of format. Will she be good enough to win back any support?

Sarah Ellison, V.F. Contributing Editor: I've been struck by how much Clinton has seemed to enjoy presenting herself as the underdog in Iowa. She talks about being outspent there by Sanders, and her supporters have noted that she may lose the state, a scary repeat of 2008. As frightening as that prospect may be for her, the narrative may actually galvanize tepid Hillary supporters who felt her to be an inevitable candidate. I expect her to lean heavily on her ability to get results and use her own battle-hardened history to poke holes in Sanders' pie-in-the-sky message.

Bruce Feirstein, V.F. Contributing Editor: For the past few days, CNN has been promoting tonight’s Iowa town hall with the kind of fervor we used to see from the World Wrestling Federation hyping a steel-cage death match. “It’s their last chance!” the announcer tells us, in classic summer-movie-trailer bombast. “A make-or-break night for their campaigns!” he booms on, stopping just short of promising they’re going to be throwing folding chairs at each other.

Given this, and the fact that these things almost never live up to the hype, my guess is that it’s going to be a fairly civilized affair, with the usual softball questions, focus-group-tested platitudes, and the risible and pandering—at least for me—“campaigning by anecdote” answers. (That is, should Clinton get asked about race relations and Black Lives Matter, will she respond with something totally tin-eared like, “The other day I met a black farmer who lost his health insurance, can’t pay his mortgage, and didn’t get nominated for an Oscar…Well, I’m going to fight for him and his family”?)

Ugh. I may be wrong about the tenor of tonight’s town-hall meeting. In fact, I hope I’m wrong about it. But either way, here are a few things I’ll be watching for:

Will Bernie Sanders give Hillary another pass on her e-mail? Like it or not, the e-mail issue continues to hover over Clinton like a Predator drone circling over Ramadi. Sure, Senator Sanders is ahead in the polls, and even catching up to Clinton in South Carolina. But will he finally point out that despite Clinton’s careful parsing about not sending or receiving any e-mails “marked” classified, a staggering number of Americans find her completely untrustworthy? Or will he just throw it all away again by announcing “I don’t give a damn about her e-mails” when so many voters actually do?

The Goldman Sachs issue. Again, another point of vulnerability for Clinton. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, she told Chuck Todd that she accepted $200,000 from the bank to talk about things like the killing of bin Laden without Goldman expecting “anything in return.” Sure. If you say so. The opportunity for Sanders here is to point out that the real issue isn’t whether Goldman expected anything in return, but rather Clinton’s judgment in taking the money in the first place.

Clinton’s embracing President Obama’s politics. I don’t mean to go all House of Cards here, but it seems to me we’re watching an interesting game being played out between the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration as to how much she can criticize the president. Last Monday, we learned there’s a chance that General Petraeus may be retroactively stripped of his fourth star for the way he mishandled top-secret information. Later in the week, Mrs. Clinton posted an article on the Huffington Post about how much Obama’s legacy means to her, and how hard she’ll work to build on the progress he’s made. You don’t need to be a Washington insider, or a Hollywood producer, to connect the dots here: if the F.B.I. recommends that Clinton should be indicted, the decision about going forward with it ultimately rests on the president’s desk. And therein is the dilemma—the tightrope—that Clinton faces in her campaign: we know a majority of voters think the country is going in the wrong direction; we know that large swaths of voters missed out on the economic recovery, which, to some extent, is driving Sanders’s popularity. So how does Clinton thread that needle—acknowledging the voters’ concern that things aren’t as wonderful as the president claims—without ticking off the same guy who may hold her destiny in his hands, especially if that guy has a vice president who’s making noises that he’s rested, ready, and regretful that he didn’t run?

The Donald Trump/Mike Bloomberg of it all. I suspect Clinton was misunderstanding Bloomberg when she told Chuck Todd on Sunday that, “the way I read what [Bloomberg] said is if I didn’t get the nomination, he might consider it.” Sorry, but my take is that Bloomberg is thinking there are a large number of Democrats who won’t vote for Clinton under any circumstances; and an equally large number of Republicans who won’t vote for Trump under any circumstances. And that’s where his calculations come in—can he peel off enough voters from both parties, and find a path to victory in the center?

I’ll be watching all this with interest tonight. So will Mike Bloomberg.